Minolta 5400, Vuescan, 1px lines

[Don]

Which all indicates that, given VueScan's rather straight forward
conversion, that it could be a coding issue within VueScan. Of course
it would take a more in depth test to "prove" that.

This has been proven repeatedly. Not only do Minolta's own software
and Silverfast work flawlessly (!!), but after *TWO* years it's
abundantly clear to everyone that the problem is with VueScan's
"programming". Can you provide a *plausible* alternative explanation?

That those VueScan bashing trolls drove the author
of VueScan away from this forum, doesn't help to solve the issue.

He (allegedly!) left the forum because he couldn't handle legitimate
VueScan users' complaints pointing out the problem has *not* been
solved - in contrast to his repeated boasting.

I don't think those paying customers - to whom he refused to refund
the money - would appreciate being called names.

One can only hope Ed Hamrick gets enough constructive (user) feedback
to justify obtaining another DSE-5400 scanner.

He did everything in his power to *avoid* addressing the problem
because, as it's clear now, he's simply incapable:
- At first he refused to acknowledge the problem.
- He then ignored sample scans sent by users.
- He then invented a convoluted "bug reporting" procedure.
- He then promptly ignored any such "bug reporting".
- He then suggested asking for a confirmation...
- Etc.. etc...

Two (that's TWO!) years later and the bug is still there!!!

And you blame the people who merely point out this *fact*? :-/

Don.

 

[Don]

Do you have a link to the SDK? I can't find it at:
<http://www.konicaminoltaeurope.com/magic_frameEoI.shtml?nav.html?software/software/software_en.html>

Have you actually tried writing to Minolta?

(Or are you just trying to change the subject away from VueScan bugs?)

You don't seem to understand how SDK requests work.

Companies don't just hand out SDKs like candy. Can you imagine the
public relations disaster a company would have if such 3rd party
software failed to work in a spectacular fashion (like VueScan)?

Therefore, anyone requesting an SDK is (usually) vetted and only those
with proper credentials and track record get it.

With VueScan's very poor record I doubt many companies would supply
the SDK in the first place, and if they did, chances are it would be
withdrawn at a later date if they get numerous complaints from users.

Many, especially in the Linux community, resent this and believe all
information should be free and freely available (I tend to agree) but
that's not the reality.

Don.

 

[Maxim Kammerer]

Did you try to calibrate the scanner from within VueScan? Are you using
the latest version of VueScan?

Hi,

I updated from Vuescan 8.1.4 to 8.1.29, and after a test this weekend
I can say it got better. Still not perfect, but the lines are less
visible now. So I hope for further improvements ;-)

All the things like reinitialising the scanner didn't and don't help.

The benefits for Vuescan (because somebody asked)

* I never got used to the ui of the Minolta-software
* it doesn't clip highlights like minolta does
* it gets a lot more out of dark parts of my pictures
* it doesn't use all cpu-time, the Minolta-software in my opinion
reserves all cpu-time but don't use it, but it heats up the cpu and
that makes more noise for cooling the system
* it has additional features like it shows where are the parts in the
picture, which are clipped or it has saveable .inis (all pictures of
the same filmtype get the same color) (yes I think this is achievable
with the minolta-tool too, but as I said, I think it's quite
unintuitive to use)
* and more...

And why I'm bothered with those lines: the Minolta-software don't do
it, and I just like to scroll around in biiiig pictures ;-)

Thank you all for your help.

regards,
Maxim

(I'm sorry I didn't update before asking, but I've got very short
access to the internet at this time.)

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Any scanner will suffer from photon shot noise. Smaller well depths
will be more critical.

It won't be photon noise - that is completely compensated for by the
longer exposures. If it was photon noise then, since all of the Minolta
SE5400 scanners use the same CCD, with the same well capacities, they
would all suffer it to a certain degree, and it would be independent of
density providing the exposure was adjusted to maintain the same well
fill.

Which all indicates that, given VueScan's rather straight forward
conversion, that it could be a coding issue within VueScan. Of course
it would take a more in depth test to "prove" that.

Some posters claim it IS a VueScan coding issue, which is obviously a
ridiculous, baseless, opinionated claim without such an in-depth test
(thus trolling in my view). Any reasonable person, like yourself, can
only assume possible causes for the phenomenon that some observe under
certain conditions.

Irrespective of the cause, Bart, it *is* a Vuescan coding issue, or
perhaps a lack of Vuescan coding issue, since it is clearly not
occurring with other software. Even assuming that it is as simple as
insufficient calibration samples to take account of the poorer signal to
noise in reduced illumination cases, that is still a Vuescan coding
issue.

With the problem not appearing in other applications, only Vuescan (and
then only in certain scan modes with Vuescan) I don't see any way of
avoiding the conclusion that this *is* a Vuescan issue. You can
speculate that the scanner has a natural deficiency (it is a real
scanner so of course it has deficiencies) that other software is
designed to compensate for - however the failure of Vuescan to also
compensate for the deficiency is still a Vuescan coding issue. It
simply doesn't do what it claims.

In my experience the scan (exposure)time is significantly increased
when the Grain Dissolver is activated, so case 2 seems more probable
(e.g. photon shot noise, although that could be reduced by
longer/multiple exposure times).

It certainly isn't photon noise - the only way that could occur would be
if the exposure was *NOT* increased, since the photon noise is *always*
the square root of the total number of photons integrated in the well
during the exposure. However any excess noise source inherent in the
sensor itself would increase its contribution to the output with a
longer exposure time. Longer exposure of low illumination means the
same number of photons, the same photon noise and hence the same photon
signal to noise. Longer exposure of low illumination more excess noise
but no more signal than short exposure of high illumination, so poorer
signal to noise.

 

[Fernando]

This corresponds to my impressions, but with my DSE 5400 this phenomenon
disappeared since VueScan 8.1.12 or so.

It can be illustrated by describing the leftmost end of what a typical
RGB histogram of the final scan looks like:

* Minolta software: pixel_count=0 from RGB=0 till RGB=10, from that
point, the histogram follows a gradually climbing slope

* VueScan before 8.1.12: pixel_count=0 from RGB=0 till RGB=30, at that
point there is a steep 90-degrees slope up to a certain height, from
which the slope gradually rises further

* VueScan from 8.1.12: same as Minolta software.

That's interesting. I don't recall which Vuescan version I used for the
latest of those tests, but it could well be < 8.1.12.
I'll try again with 8.1.32, will also try it on the SS120 while I'm at it.
Thanks for the head up!

Fernando

 

[Hecate]

SNIP

Do you have a link to the SDK? I can't find it at:
<http://www.konicaminoltaeurope.com/magic_frameEoI.shtml?nav.html?software/software/software_en.html>

No, I don't, I've never had the need. But Ed has said he didn't use
it.

 

[rgbcmyk]

Hi,

I updated from Vuescan 8.1.4 to 8.1.29, and after a test this weekend
I can say it got better. Still not perfect, but the lines are less
visible now. So I hope for further improvements ;-)

All the things like reinitialising the scanner didn't and don't help.

The benefits for Vuescan (because somebody asked)

* I never got used to the ui of the Minolta-software
* it doesn't clip highlights like minolta does
* it gets a lot more out of dark parts of my pictures

Under what condition does the Minolta 5400 clip highlights? I evaluate
the histograms in the Exposure Control tab to see if there are any
clipping, and only see them in some images. If there are clippings, I
would adjust the exposure, which is hw based. I don't make any sw
adjustments in the scanner. For Vuescan to eliminate highlight clipping
and get more details in the shadow, it would have to either know how to
control the hw better than the Minolta utility, or would have to do so
in sw. Do you know how Vuescan does it?

 

[Maxim Kammerer]

Under what condition does the Minolta 5400 clip highlights? I evaluate
the histograms in the Exposure Control tab to see if there are any
clipping, and only see them in some images. If there are clippings, I
would adjust the exposure, which is hw based. I don't make any sw
adjustments in the scanner. For Vuescan to eliminate highlight clipping
and get more details in the shadow, it would have to either know how to
control the hw better than the Minolta utility, or would have to do so
in sw. Do you know how Vuescan does it?

I guess the Minolta-Software has a very bad localization and
translation. There is no exposure control in my version, ist is called
brightness (lightness, luminance) control here I guess. There are
separate controls for rgb and one for overall, together with
histograms. If I see there is in one of the directions something
clipped, I move the slider, when moving for example to the dark side I
can see in the histogram, how there is information coming in from the
light side, but in the same moment I move information out of the
histogram at the dark side. I can move it to -2 and see still
information coming in on the right side, but guess what happened to
dark and mid-tones.

I never could use these sliders. They only made things worse.

But that clipping in the highlights is not really bad at all and
affects just small parts of the picture, but sometimes this is just an
important part of it. And this digital clipping looks quite bad and
not as good as an analog clipping like by overexposing the film. But I
think it's there every time except few pictures with low overall
contrast.

For the dark parts in some few pictures (they are surely underexposed)
Vuescan gets really much more out of them (and I even didn't use the
double scan or long exposure pass), but this parts are very
noisy/grainy, but it gets information out there I never saw before ;-)
The Minolta-Software clips that to black (but also the
Minolta-Software gets more out than there is on the paper-photo
visible).

regards
Maxim

(as I said, I never got used to the interface of the Minolta-Software,
but the results all in all aren't that bad without any tweaking... but
still, it clips)

 

[Wilfred]

Maxim Kammerer wrote:




Under what condition does the Minolta 5400 clip highlights?

In my experience it clips the highlights when scanning negatives, not
when scanning slides.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

(e-mail address removed) wrote: SNIP

In my experience it clips the highlights when scanning negatives,
not when scanning slides.

Yes, my experience as well. Either shadows, highlights, or both,
depending on the exposure/gain settings.

Bart

 

[Fernando]

Yes, my experience as well. Either shadows, highlights, or both,
depending on the exposure/gain settings.

Ditto. I use Vuescan for negatives, better some faint streaks than
clipped extremities.
I use Minolta Scan Utility for slides for I'm quite satisfied with the
picture quality it delivers.

Fernando

 

[Maxim Kammerer]

In my experience it clips the highlights when scanning negatives, not
when scanning slides.

I was talking about negatives, too. I (still) don't have slides.

Maxim

 

[rgbcmyk]

I guess the Minolta-Software has a very bad localization and
translation. There is no exposure control in my version, ist is called
brightness (lightness, luminance) control here I guess. There are
separate controls for rgb and one for overall, together with
histograms. If I see there is in one of the directions something
clipped, I move the slider, when moving for example to the dark side I
can see in the histogram, how there is information coming in from the
light side, but in the same moment I move information out of the
histogram at the dark side. I can move it to -2 and see still
information coming in on the right side, but guess what happened to
dark and mid-tones.
I never could use these sliders. They only made things worse.

There are two different sets of sliders in the Minolta 5400 sw.

The Exposure Control tab is a hw exposure control with four sliders: one
composite slider and three separate rgb sliders, each with its own
histogram. Adjusting these sliders lengthens/shortens the exposure time
during a scan, and you can notice the difference in the time it takes to
scan. Not all film scanners come with hw exposure controls. I find
adjusting these sliders very helpful in fixing the clippings. I also use
these sliders to generate two (or more) scans, one exposed for
highlights and the other exposed for shadow. Blending these in PS will
capture both the highlight and shadow details (provided that they exist
on film in the first place).

You are probably referring to the sliders under the Image Correction
tab. These sliders make sw corrections after a scan is captured. I don't
use this tab at all, and do all my sw corrections in PS which has much
better tools.

But that clipping in the highlights is not really bad at all and
affects just small parts of the picture, but sometimes this is just an
important part of it. And this digital clipping looks quite bad and
not as good as an analog clipping like by overexposing the film. But I
think it's there every time except few pictures with low overall
contrast.

For the dark parts in some few pictures (they are surely underexposed)
Vuescan gets really much more out of them (and I even didn't use the
double scan or long exposure pass), but this parts are very
noisy/grainy, but it gets information out there I never saw before ;-)
The Minolta-Software clips that to black (but also the
Minolta-Software gets more out than there is on the paper-photo
visible).

(as I said, I never got used to the interface of the Minolta-Software,
but the results all in all aren't that bad without any tweaking... but
still, it clips)

Again, I wonder if Vuescan gets more shadow details by tweaking the
scanner's hw, or its sw.

 

[rgbcmyk]

Ditto. I use Vuescan for negatives, better some faint streaks than
clipped extremities.
I use Minolta Scan Utility for slides for I'm quite satisfied with the
picture quality it delivers.

Fernando

I only scan slides with the Minolta 5400, and find the Minolta sw doing
a fine job if I assign the scans to the scanner profile in PS. It
certainly helps when we post our questions and comments with CONTEXT.

 

[Mendel Leisk]

Did you find Vuescan doing a better job in focusing than the Minolta sw?

Sorry, just read your question:

I've given up on Vuescan for actual scanning, for present, due to:

1. lines in scan.

2. poor infrared cleaning.

I output 16bit linear, then use it as a Vuescan Raw.

To your question, regarding Minolta vs Vuescan focus, I'm not really
sure. I'm happy with manually focussing a "compromise" location with
Minolta, using the mouse to push the bars out. Single clicking on the
arrows at the extremities of the scroll gives precise control.

I do like Vuescan's ability to drag the focus point and have it stay
there. Also, you can set it to do the focus at that point JUST before
the scan, which could be superior, if the film has flexed, due to heat
or whatever.

But until the quality and cleaning of real scans improves, I'll stick
with Minolta software for that step.

 

[Fernando]

That's interesting. I don't recall which Vuescan version I used for the
latest of those tests, but it could well be < 8.1.12.
I'll try again with 8.1.32, will also try it on the SS120 while I'm at it.
Thanks for the head up!

Quick update with Vuescan 8.1.35 and SE 5400: streaks are still there
, but dynamic range seems to have improved a bit since by previous
test. Ditto for color accuracy (I re-did all of my profiles; the
profiling routines appear to be improved). HOW I HATE those streaks.


Fernando

 

[Wilfred]

Quick update with Vuescan 8.1.35 and SE 5400: streaks are still there
, but dynamic range seems to have improved a bit since by previous
test. Ditto for color accuracy (I re-did all of my profiles; the
profiling routines appear to be improved). HOW I HATE those streaks.

Well, from other recent postings it's obvious that the streaks are still
there with some units, so I'm not surprised. Does it make any difference
using or not using the GD?

 

[Fernando]

This time I only tried wth GD, IR and 4x multisampling turned on, since
I re-did all my profiles (Provia, Velvia, Ektachrome) this way. In the
past, there were no differences with or without GD, with or without IR,
with or without multisampling.

BTW, this 8.1.35 version also appears to be quite fast: zoom, display
refresh, postprocessing ("Color...") and saving to disk operations
appear to be quite faster than before.

Fernando

 

[Don]

BTW, this 8.1.35 version also appears to be quite fast

Not really.

Only a few weeks ago everyone has complained how slow VueScan became
all of a sudden.

So, what you're seeing is just getting back to square one (status quo
ante). In other words, that particular bug has been temporarily
suppressed.

Judging by VueScan's history, it will be back soon... So make sure you
back up this version!

Don.

 

[Fernando]

Not really.

Only a few weeks ago everyone has complained how slow VueScan became
all of a sudden.

So, what you're seeing is just getting back to square one (status quo
ante). In other words, that particular bug has been temporarily
suppressed.

LOL! Well, it could just be the truth. Vuescan indeed slowed down to a
crawl some versions ago; this one seems really fast... again.

Judging by VueScan's history, it will be back soon... So make sure you
back up this version!

I always do! Something like 75MB of previous Vuescan versions. You
never know...!

Fernando